To be effective, an author must write for a particular "audience," and a major problem is to determine just who that audience is. After years of searching, I believe I have discovered mine to consist of those people who are dissatisfied with much of what fundamentalism has to offer but are unwilling to accept modern liberalism with its denial of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. These people have found fundamentalism, while loyal to the divinity of Christ, to the divine inspiration of the Bible, and to the supernatural origin of its miracles, to be much too literal in its interpretations, which are often seen to be juvenile, fantastic, and even contradictory. The "liberal" school, on the other hand, by denying divine inspiration, miracles, predictive prophecy, and the divinity of Christ, produces analyses of Holy Scripture that seldom bring that measure of consolation and edification the Christian desires and expects. The clash between these two extreme schools of interpretation often comes down to the difference between reading a passage of Scripture as either "literal" or "figurative." Fundamentalists frequently make the mistake of trying to accept at face value a saying which was intended to be symbolic, allegorical, or metaphorical. The "liberals," on the other hand, while seldom confusing the literal with the figurative, go to the other extreme and attempt to explain away many of the patently literal texts, especially those that involve an element of the supernatural.

Perhaps my studies will help those who, recognizing that the liberals do have a point, see difficulties in accepting everything in the Bible at face value. There are many passages in both the Old and the New Testament that have thoroughly puzzled countless Christians. As one who was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, I can sympathize with these people. I have never been satisfied with some of the clumsy attempts by certain Bible expositors to bring sense to these difficult texts. Being raised in a strict Christian family, I heard the Bible quoted daily, and thought I knew it pretty well. I was indoctrinated in a system of theology called "Dispensationalism" which has for its motto, "Literal unless explicitly stated otherwise." Eventually, I grew disillusioned with the doctrines of my church and quit attending for ten years.

However, my faith was subsequently restored by the goodness of the Lord. Then I was given to know that I needed to study the Bible. For the first time in my life, I began to read it seriously. As I did so, I discovered that the main tenets of Dispensationalism are false, and, if I were to continue believing that the Bible was the very word of God, I was forced to fill the void.
It wasn't long till I began to see a different set of answers to many of the doctrinal points that my church had developed. A number of puzzling passages of Scripture began to suddenly make sense, but only by regarding their language as largely figurative rather than literal. One revelation was the knowledge that usually every metaphor, simile, or parable in the Bible has its "definition" somewhere else. There are a multitude of parallel phrases that can be associated together in such a way that they are mutually enlightening. This, I firmly believe, is what Paul meant when he said to compare spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2:13).

Therefore, for those who like myself have been dissatisfied with that body of doctrine called "Dispensationalism," I have tried to provide plausible interpretations for a few of these difficult texts. The present collection of essays is a part of that endeavor.